User talk:Collyfire

What are you doing?

Please come back! There 3 million other pages on here to edit. Unfortunately, since you announced you are part of the company you may not edit anything about this due to WP:COI and WP:SOAP. Thank you. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 17:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Footballidentity

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Footballidentity requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Woodroar (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Footballidentity

Hi I wish to contest the deletion of footballidentity as I feel this entry is in keeping with a niche area of wikipedia which can be found here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_free_massively_multiplayer_online_games - in fact I used some of those entries as a template for the entry. I am not trying to advertise this site (and did not even include a link to the site) so I specifically tried not to create the article as an advertisement merely an informative piece adding to the above linked niche.

Thanks

Collyfire (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other similar articles aren't a valid reason to keep this article, only to potentially edit or delete those other articles. Every article on Wikipedia must meet our notability and verifiability policies, meaning they need references from reliable, third-party published sources. In this case, that typically means game reviews written by legitimate game journalists and published by game magazines or websites. If you can find such reviews, you'll probably want to start by reading Wikipedia:Your first article. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your speedy response - a few reviews online include these below - unfortunately I am quite busy at work at the moment so cannot get more at this time but will research later.
http://www.devilsmmo.com/review/football-identity-review
http://www.gamebase.info/magazine/read/football-identity_936.html
http://gamelist.bbgsite.com/goto/footballidentity.shtml
http://website.informer.com/footballidentity.com
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/footballidentity.com

Would this be the kind of review you suggest.
Thanks again for your help Collyfire (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest starting by checking out the WikiProject Video games guide to sources for suggestions on reliable sites. Of the two review sites you listed, one doesn't list an author (a sure sign of an unreliable source) and the other simply says "Alex" with a link to a blank profile page (not much better). I would definitely keep looking, although it's possible that there are not yet any reliable magazines/websites that have reviewed the game. If that's the case, we may have to wait for reviews until the article can be created. If I've got some time, I'll take a look for sites myself. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your very informative input. I have taken a good long look at your previous suggested links re. Notability and I have to say that the wikipedia project is absolutely right in taking this stance on suitability of articles.
I took a lot of care and attention to try to write an unbiased and informative article but probably paid too little attention to the suitability section.
I still believe that (with now over 30000 users and a worldwide spread) that this article has some validity and will carry on my research on this.
I really appreciate your helpful replies and I will spend some time reading your latest link above also do you think it would be advisable to contact the game developers to see if they have any input - I realise that they would have COI issues so I am slightly reluctant to make that contact.
Thanks again I realise that you work voluntarily on the project and am grateful that you have put so much effort into helping me on my first tentative steps to being a wikipedia contributor.
Collyfire (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help! And you're right that the developer shouldn't be working on the article, but there's nothing stopping you from contacting them and, say, asking if they know of any reviews. Sometimes the developer can point us towards magazine or book reviews that Google can't find and then we can take care of the rest. If you have any questions, feel free to let me know! Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]